The Prostitute Justified by Works: The Book of James

Was not even Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

James was among the books spoken against by the early church before finally being admitted to the canon of Scripture. Of the books which were originally disputed, few were criticized in such strong language as James. His teachings on faith and works were suspect, and he was thought to give support to the sects which taught full compliance with Jewish law (including such things as clothing and dietary restrictions).

I understand the concern with the book of James. I'm aware of the part where James looks very much as if he is insisting that there is a certain "earned righteousness" going on, a status before God based on righteous acts that someone could claim as his own. But that's until you consider his examples. I'm not sure that we have really appreciated the shock value of James' choices of examples. He lists only two examples of people justified for what they did. One was a patriarch; the other was a prostitute. She wasn't a reformed prostitute, or a former prostitute; she was a prostitute. When we read about the spies and the prostitute (Joshua chapter 2), we can and should give the spies the benefit of the doubt as to what they were doing with a prostitute; but we cannot extend the same treatment to the prostitute. She was identified as a prostitute, someone known for her sexual immorality.

When the Hebrew spies came to her, she told the authorities that the spies had left, while in fact she was hiding them. This was her righteous act. It was not exactly pure on its own merits; it involved a lie. But it was an act of faith all the same. James could easily have mentioned that she was justified by works when she reformed her life; he did not. He makes his example "the prostitute justified by works".

Anyone who has read the book of James (or the rest of Scripture, for that matter) knows that there is no implication that being a prostitute is a good thing, or even that lying is a good thing. If we consider James' examples, it is difficult to imagine that he is arguing that we earn eternal life or deserve eternal life. He is simply arguing that faith that does nothing is dead. A faith which does not affect how you act is not faith in any meaningful sense at all. However, it is an abuse of the book of James to turn it into an insult to genuine faith; James makes his own point:

I will show you my faith by what I do.

Song of Solomon: The benefit of its being in the canon

BK over at CADRE Comments recently quoted an old C.S. Lewis essay on which I have been meaning to comment for some time. Lewis comments that for a religion to be adequate for the world in which we live, to have any right to contend as the true religion, it must meet certain criteria: it must have mysteries and ecstasies and celebrations on the one hand, and ethics and philosophy on the other; any religion which only contains one or the other is simply inadequate to cover the whole truth of the world, regardless of whether it might get certain individual things right. This serves as a decent introduction for my comments on the Song of Solomon, one of the follow-ups I still intend to post on the topic of the canon of Scripture.

---

The Song of Solomon was once among the contested books of the Bible, back when the canon of Scripture was still being formed. Being a cycle of sensual poems about romantic love, some liked it for its content, some disapproved of it as less than holy, and some allegorized it.

I have heard outspoken atheists mock Christians for having such a sensual book in the Bible; they've apparently confused sexual integrity with being cold, rigid, and joyless. That is a mistake; but it is a mistake all too commonly made. More than one religious person has taken a badly wrong turn by supposing that morality was something cold, rigid, and joyless; it has given goodness and uprightness a bad name that was never deserved. One of the Bible's best-loved characters is a king who was a shepherd, a musician, a composer of songs who was known to dance in the streets. The ancient traditions hold that it was his son Solomon who composed this particular cycle of poems.

The Song of Solomon deserves its place among our holy books for its portrayal of beautiful, playful, sensual, and devoted human love. Including a book like this in the canon makes a statement on the nature of goodness. It sets the married man free to enjoy his wife's beauty in a tender way, not in the harsh and degrading tones of pornography, but in a way that is also compassionate and dignified. It shows intimate sensuality coupled with kindness and devotion, a sensuality with decorum instead of crudeness. It sets the wife free to pursue the sensuality of spices and dancing and wine, to celebrate with her husband. It recognizes and appreciates the body without losing sight of the beloved as a person; instead it appreciates the other only because the other is the beloved. There is no talk about what the beloved's body should be like; it is simply appreciated and celebrated for what it is.

What kind of religion has sensual poetry in its sacred texts? One that recognizes the value and goodness of the world as creation; one that does not think of the material world as a distraction or a mistake but a blessing; one that recognizes the right place of unrushed private moments between a husband and wife; one that values things not only for their abstract philosophy but also for their humanity. If a religion had no place for that, is it really broad and generous enough to speak to the whole range of human experience? If a religion had disowned that text, is it really glad enough and life-affirming enough -- and personal enough -- to be entrusted with directing our lives? Imagine what a cold effect would it have, and what a loss it would be, if there was no such cycle of poems in the Bible. Our own culture is one where a healthier image of the marriage relationship is much needed. Imagine the effect it would have on the lives of people in our culture if they had an ideal in which sexuality is combined with love, devotion, decorum, and kindness; where uprightness is combined with a celebration of spices and wine and delight in the other person. That is a text that can help a confused age reclaim its humanity.

Woohoo! Christian Reconciliation Carnival #4 is up!

A great big thank-you to Mark Olson at Pseudo-Polymath. He has done a great job in putting up Christian Reconciliation Carnival #4 on shorter notice than you might have guessed, given some technical difficulties and disorganization on my part.

Stop on over and give him a read. The special topic of the month is what we can do here and now as a start, however humble, towards re-uniting the church. I like Mark's suggestions in What to do ... Now.

Please consider what post you'd like to send in for next carnival.

Anyone who is interested in hosting, send an email here: we have openings available. Hosting is easy and comes with a perk: you get to pick the topic of the month. As always, any post on the subject of Christian unity or respectfully exploring differences is welcome.

The AntiChrist: Call for Discussion Among Lutherans

Generally, I refrain from posting pieces on this blog that are not applicable in some way to all Christians everywhere. This post is different in that it is intended only for those who are, like me, members of confessional Lutheran churches. This post re-opens old controversies and is nearly guaranteed to raise tempers among both Lutherans and Roman Catholics. I have to respectfully ask the Roman Catholics to pass over this conversation as a matter internal to Lutherans. It is surely not news that Lutherans view the church of Rome as needing reform. This call is for Lutherans to maintain our witness to Christ while re-evaluating the idea that it is proper to identify the papacy with the antichrist; as such it will surely have more effect as an internal conversation among Lutherans (or at least Protestants). For that reason, comments coming from outside the intended target audience may be deleted for the sole reason of keeping the conversation within that intended target audience, contrary to my usual practice of letting a pertinent comment stand regardless of author, view, tone or helpfulness. Your understanding is appreciated.

Also, writing something in a recognizable call-for-debate format is tedious. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, really. But for all that, I think this is a necessary conversation and so here goes.

---

One of the foundational marks of Lutheran Christianity is its loyalty to Christ, especially its devotion to the cross of Christ and the mystery of the humble God, to the gentle yoke and easy burden of the gospel, the determination to lift high the cross and to trust Christ alone. We have an instinctive dislike for speculative theologies and for Bible interpretations involving artifice; the further a dogma drifts from the cross of Christ, the more certain we are that it is bad theology. We have a deep and abiding love for forthrightness and plain talk. We also believe that questions of Reform should be matters for open discussion in the church; we've even been known to nail our theses to church doors.

To this end, I have to ask:

• Given that Lutherans reject Rome's decree "that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff"¹, first because it is at the name of Jesus that every knee should bow, and second because Christ called leaders among his people not to lord it over others as Gentile rulers did, but taught plainly that the greatest among the apostles should be the self-humbling servant rather than the self-exalting ruler;
• Given that Lutherans reject Rome's dogma that our works merit the attainment of eternal life², in that eternal life is a gift beyond our earning, and eternal life cannot be attained apart from forgiveness of sins and is therefore is not attained by our merit;
• Given that the antichrist is said to be known for his self-exaltation and his enmity for the Gospel of Christ;

Does it therefore follow that we are justified in identifying the office of the papacy with the antichrist?

Consider these points:

• That not everyone bearing any similarity to the final and ultimate antichrist is truly the final and ultimate antichrist, since the sins and rebellions of the antichrist (self-exaltation and devaluing Christ) are common;
• That even those who have gone so far as to rightly earn the name antichrist are not always the final and ultimate antichrist, as John taught that "even now many antichrists have come";
• That we do not call everyone the antichrist who exalts himself, who claims that every human creature owes him submission; though we condemn self-exaltation as contrary to the spirit of Christ, and affirm that the one with all authority in this world is none other than God's Messiah, the true Christ;
• That we do not call everyone the antichrist who teaches that our works merit eternal life, though we condemn the teaching that eternal life is merited by human works.
• That those who have declared that the final and ultimate antichrist of history is none other than the office of the papacy have rendered a historical judgment without having seen all of history and so have reached a verdict without hearing all the evidence;
• That the antichrist will only be known with certainty on the Last Day;
• That the right judgment to reveal the antichrist rests with God alone;
• That if before the Last Day we say that we have identified the antichrist, we may be proved wrong; and if proved wrong then we will have been teaching falsely;
• That if before the Last Day we say that we have identified the antichrist and are proved wrong, we will have borne false witness;
• That likewise if proved wrong, we will have sowed discord among brothers;
• That if we present something as truth without knowing for a fact that we are truthful, then morally it is as if we had been false witnesses because of our lack of knowledge, even if at the Last Day we should be proved correct.
• It follows that even if this criticism against the papacy is vindicated we cannot know that now and therefore cannot rightly teach it now;
• That even one who speaks the truth finds himself in the wrong if he speaks without love -- this is not to say that strength and certainty and condemning wrong are to be faulted, but only to say that even these things rightly have the ultimate aim of bringing about repentance and reform;
• That if we speak without love, we prevent ourselves from being heard except as an annoying and senseless sound;
• That if we have become an annoying and senseless sound then we will not be heard even when we teach Christ's humility and Christ's merits;
• That portraying the office of the papacy as the anti-Christ presupposes the impossibility of repentance or humility on the part of the papacy and hinders true love (if not precluding it altogether);
• That associating the papacy with an unreformable character causes us to neglect preaching Christ's humility and Christ's merits in those places where Christ's humility and Christ's merits would be a message of greatest blessing.

With that in view, I would like to call for open discussion on whether it is acceptable to continue permitting the identification of anyone or any institution (including the office of the papacy) as the antichrist before the Last Day when the truth of the matter becomes known. In the spirit of reform, I would hold that we cannot rightly answer this question solely in terms of loyalty to doctrines derived in the Middle Ages, but must first and foremost consider our loyalty to Christ, to his call to make disciples of all nations, not to bear false witness, and to speak the truth in love. I would contend that refraining from calling the papacy the antichrist is right for our own sakes and for the sake of righteousness, and also makes us more effective witnesses of Christ's humility and Christ's merits. I would also contend that refraining from calling the papacy the antichrist will allow the church of Rome to hear our voice as something other than a clanging gong or resounding cymbal, and instead hear our objection: that supremacy belongs to Christ in such a way that there is no human office which can obligate us, and that salvation belongs to Christ in such a way that we do not earn it but receive it as an unmerited gift.

---

1 - Unam Sanctam, see concluding remarks.
2 - Council of Trent, Canon XXXII

The Trinity, God's Essence, God's Energies

Awhile back, Mark at Pseudo-Polymath graciously took up the question I put down at a previous Christian Reconciliation Carnival: for someone Eastern Orthodox to please explain their understanding of God's essence and God's energies. (See also here and here.) My understanding of the teaching is this: God, in himself and in his immutable essence, is not directly knowable; but that through his energies he interacts with the world and becomes immanent, present, and knowable. It is through God's energies that God creates, redeems, and even transfers attributes of his essence to us (e.g. makes us holy because he is holy). That could be material for several posts right there -- even assuming I'm understanding that teaching correctly -- but I wanted to mention why I'm investigating that.

The reason I asked was this: I think some of the Trinitarian issues are going to have to be revisited along the way to achieving reconciliation in the church as a whole, and I think the Eastern Orthodox understanding of God's essence and God's energies will come to play in that. Before anyone starts to be concerned on my behalf talking about revisiting the Trinity, let me assure you that I have no problem at all with the Nicene Creed, nor with any of the passages of Scripture discussing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, some of the expositions of the Trinity that have come out since have sounded awkward, as if the categories being used (essence/ousia, person/hypostasis) were not really the cleanest fit for what was being described. The Trinity as it is currently taught may be the best job that anyone could possibly do in describing Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the categories adapted from ancient Greek philosophy; but that leaves untouched the entirely separate question of whether ancient Greek philosophy (even as adapted) was properly equipped to describe God.

As for those explanations of the Trinity in categories adapted from ancient Greek philosophy, some of the explanations have sounded contrived or forced. My concern is that our current understanding the Trinity does not do justice to God: that the awkwardness of the categories in handling the content is a sign that they are not a good fit. Even the best conception of God using these categories rarely attains to the height of true theology where what is taught can be recognized as good news, life-giving news. The current teaching is excessively technical in a way which tends to rob it of even the possibility of being good news for large numbers of people who are not technically minded (besides leaving "theology" for the "experts" and fostering divisions). In practice, this leads to a popular understanding that is flat and rote. Worse than that, the popular current understanding of the Trinity is tenuous because a flat and rote understanding is propped up by the threat of excommunication. I'm not at all saying that no theologian has done better; but I do think I'm describing the actual state of matters in an uncomfortably large number of cases.

It's not only the Eastern Orthodox understandings of essence and energies that I expect to come into play as we broaden, deepen, and refine our understanding of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I expect we will also need to incorporate the ancient Jewish concepts of God's Presence/Shekhinah and God's Wisdom/Torah (in the broad sense).

Just as a sample of what I could envision -- for the average person's understanding of the Trinity as good news -- imagine if the average person were to have a concept of the Torah as God's Wisdom which gives life, the Word by which he formed the world, the Word which gives form to our lives and transfers some of God's attributes to us, which makes us holy (as God is holy) and bestows on us God's image. Then imagine if the average person were to have a concept of God's Presence in the world through his Spirit, a living and active presence full of His glory, and by which the prophets spoke God's Wisdom. I think then you'd be fairly close to understanding the Trinity in alternative terms (in this case, in Jewish terms). When God said in the plural, "Let us make man in our image", did he speak to the Torah and the Shechinah? How far is that from saying that He spoke to His Word and His Spirit?

I'm not saying that rethinking the Trinity in terms of essence and communication and energies, or even in terms of I AM and Torah and Shechinah, is quite so simple as the quick sketch above. I certainly don't mean to say that the concept of God's energies maps directly onto God's Word and God's Spirit. I am saying that if the knowledge of God is going to be what it should be, we still have a lot of ground to explore, even after all this time.

Mark, I hope you're not too appalled at why I was asking. I would be glad if the 21st century of the church goes down in history as the century of reconciliation; or even if the 24th century did and our century was later considered mere groundwork. I would also be glad if the 21st century of the church goes down in history as the century in which we reached deep into our roots -- and even into the roots of our disagreements -- for more resources to know God.

Part 2: What If Your Profession Had Been Named

I had enough fun with posting What If Your Profession Had Been Named that I thought I'd do it again.

If reporters, journalists, and other authors came to him and said,"What should we do?"

Would he have said, "Do not bear false witness; Judge your neighbor fairly; Do not go about spreading slander; Speak the truth with love"?

What if your profession had been named?

Tax collectors also came to be baptized. "Teacher," they asked, "what should we do?"

"Don't collect any more than you are required to," he told them.

Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?"

He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely -- be content with your pay."

These are some of the conversations recorded between John the Baptist and those who came to be baptized. But I can't help but wondering what he would say to us today. I know most of us could stand to hear, "Be content with your pay." But would there have been more pointed advice for some trades? What if ...

If some lawyers came to him and asked, "What should we do?"

Would he have said, "Do not defend the guilty nor accuse the innocent; seek only justice" and "Do not bear false witness"?

If some car salesmen came to him and asked, "What should we do?"

Would he have said, "Do not take advantage of the widows or the young" and "Do not use dishonest price scales to take extra money from the unwary"?

I know there are other professions that have a reputation for being ethically challenged. But do you wonder what he would have said if he were talking to people of your trade? Here's mine:

If he were talking to programmers, would he have said, "Do not inflate your estimates to avoid an honest discussion on the merits of a project"? Or "Don't abuse your expertise to give misleading answers that suit your convenience"? (You always suspected some of us did. Well, some of us do.)

If your profession had been named, what would have been said to you?